My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/14/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 08/14/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 4:01:03 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 4:29:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/14/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 8/14/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Finally, Mr. Hirst discussed the lawsuit brought to Thomas Properties, alluded to by Mr. Garrett. <br />Mr. Hirst also feels that Mr. Garrett should come forward with his "ace in the hole," <br /> <br />Commissioner Dove advised that he spoke with Mr. Hirst. Commissioner Dove asked the applicants <br /> <br />to provide adequate handicapped parking for their employees and visitors. He supports the project <br />as recommended. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper stated he would like to see this project come to Pleasanton. He toured the <br />Berkeley plant and feels it is misleading to call this a manufacturing operation; it reminded him more <br />of a lab setup with some assembly. Commissioner Cooper commented that the polymer operation <br />is very well controlled; he agrees with Ms. Boykin that the storage area could be upgraded. In all, <br />he feels the Berkeley facility is a very neatly run operation. He knows the noise created by the <br />Stoneridge traffic is high, and he cannot find that the HV AC operation will be a nuisance to the <br />nearby homeowners. Commissioner Cooper supports approval of this application. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated that the "ace in the hole" of Mr. Garrett is a political issue and is more <br />appropriate for the City Council to hear. Commissioner Wright likes the design of the building. <br />He commented that the previous approval of the shopping center was market-driven at that time; and <br />this application for an office/research laboratory is market driven at this time. He feels the applicant <br />will be a good neighbor and a benefit to the neighborhood and Pleasanton. He has no opposition to <br />the second shift since Providian BanCorp is operating from 5 a.m. to late night with various shift <br />work. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright's only concern is the change in Condition 54 to a 7 a.m. start time. Because <br />of the project's proximity to the residential area, he cannot support the 7 a.m. start time. Once the <br />structure is up, then an earlier start time can be instituted for the interior work. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker will agree to the height of the entry feature, believing it is a compromise <br />position. She wondered if the project was too large for the site, providing no room for growth, and <br />would like to see some type of mitigation made for the noise of the HV AC unit. She requests more <br />screening around the HV AC equipment. Commissioner Barker would also like staff to look into the <br />left turn from Stoneridge into this project site; she believes this will be the most popular entrance <br />for employees. She also requested the Traffic Engineer review the merge distance on Stoneridge. <br />Mr. Higdon advised he has reviewed this and sees no problem. Commissioner Barker advised she <br />is in support of this project. <br /> <br />Chairman Lutz also feels this is a very well designed project and feels there will be minimal impact <br />to the residential areas. He feels Thoratec is the type of company Pleasanton would like to attract, <br />and noted he would like to see Pleasanton become a center for this type of research and development. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright motioned, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, making the fmding that <br />the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact and adopt a resolution <br />recommending approval of the attached Negative Declaration, Exhibit "D." <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />August 14, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.